Consumer Ignorance toward High Definition

[Guest]

I love High Definition to the point that if a movie comes on regular HBO I will not watch it only until when it plays on HBO-HD. I also have perfect vison.

However, a frind of mine who is rather smart anyway, said to me that he cannot tell the differnece in HD and regualr TV. He says regular TV is all the quality that he cares to watch.
He also said he dosnt understand why widescreen is better than regualar square TV. He actually said "if it is streched wide why not strech it tall as well". :o

This kind of lack of understanding blows my mind. I tried to explain to him that true HD monitors can look so good its as if your looking threw a window and that most likely he was looking at a cheap EDTV set which I think is a bastard of a product trying to trick people into thinking they have an HDTV. Then he told me that his vision was not all that good and that got me thinking that, maybe this plays an issue in the fact that HD is not catching on as fast as it could and is the reason some people are not impressed with HD.

I think that the sollution is to start with the children. High school curiculum should get rid of Triganomitry and Algerbra 2 (which has no baring in the real world for most people) and instead teach home theater setup. How to program a VCR. and other problems that people actually encounter in the real world. Sony should sponcer the school programs cause maybe then people would want an HDTV.

I am basicly asking if you think peoples poor vision accounts for some ignorace toward High Def or is it all a money thing? I mean, lots of people wear contancts these days.

[Shaw]

High school curiculum should get rid of Triganomitry and Algerbra 2

Whoa! I'm of the opinion that most people should have to take Calculus....

[Guest]

The point you make about your friend is worth considering - and maybe he wasn't being smart, I know a lot of people who can't see the difference... but I think perhaps we the ones who need educating. It sounds like he's much more interested in quality content than the kind of technical points discussed by amateur film makers and videographers.

Who cares if you're looking through a clear window at garbage. Good material will always hold up, irrespective of media. And why should a clear window by 16:9 anyway, why not 32:5 or 7:18?

You also lead me of another point: perhaps languages should receive more emphasis at school (ie spelling and grammar heehee)?

Your friend's point notwithstanding... I'm getting suckered in by technical mumbojumbo too. I played around with an FX1 in a Sony shop yesterday... I'm afraid my DVX is out the window. Despite all the talk on this site of artifacts and nasty compression and lack of progressive blah blah blah... I tried everything to make that HDV image fall apart but it just wouldn't happen... the images speak for themselves. My DVX side by side with the FX1 got hammered. I took my DVX into the store to make comparisons, but the difference was so startling I just...

Well, I should go back to your friend's point... at the end of the day the medium isn't the be all and end all, you've gotta find something meaningful to shoot, and then shoot it well, that's the real trick.

[John_Q]

I am basicly asking if you think peoples poor vision accounts for some ignorace toward High Def or is it all a money thing? I mean, lots of people wear contancts these days.


A lot of it simply training your eyes to notice a difference. Those of us who are camera ops/directors of photography, photographers...Our eyes have all been under training and are constant being trained...we can see things and distinguish things a lot of other people cant see, because they arent in a field where they need to train there eyes...nor do they care to.

Much like muscians and sound people. My ears arent nearly as trained to hear they way they do.

No offense, but I find a lot of ignorance located right in your post.

Yes, there tends to be a night day difference between HD and broadcast...if your viewing it on good equipment side by side. Fact is, most people dont know, dont care, and cant afford to find out. And those that do know dont find it worth spending the money right now.

As much as I love HD, and would get even more out of watching lots of my favorite shows in HD...lets face it The West Wing is (or was post 5th season) amazing without HD, Smallville is good without HD...Arrested Development is still hilarious without HD.

Most people care about the content, not how crystal clear it is...especially with television. And translates into arguements of their own. Sure HD is gorgeous to look at, specially if we know what we are looking at...but I can live just fine with paying extra for an HDTV and HD cable.

But its like the basics of learning filmmaking/tv/etc

Its all about starting with a good story. Doesnt matter if how good it looks, if the story sucks...the whole things sucks.

[skital]

You'd have to be blind not to be able to tell the difference between brodcast TV and HD. If there was ever a time to use the phrase "Night & Day" to describe the difference between two things I'd have to say that this is the perfect time.

The setups in Wal-Mart, though, are piss poor (for HD, anyway. It still looks much better than broadcast though). People aren't seeing what HD really looks like. Most sets are badly calibrated and the CRT sets are out of alignment. Not to mention that some "HDTV" is 480p scaled to 720p or 1080i.

There is a pretty huge difference between dvds and hdtv. Broadcast tv doesn't even compare. Hell, broadcast TV looks awful in comparison to dvd; it looks even worse when compared to high definition.

On my projector at 110" (even higher) it's much easier to tell the differences in quality, because HDTV even at that size (dvds too) makes regular tv on a 20" TV look like crap.

[John_Q]

You'd have to be blind not to be able to tell the difference between brodcast TV and HD. If there was ever a time to use the phrase "Night & Day" to describe the difference between two things I'd have to say that this is the perfect time.


I find this statement true.

I also wouldnt be caught dead looking at wal mart for HD...but in light of that comment...HD is usually set up piss poor in most major chains...hell digital in general. Sadly, even in some high end home theater stores...truly pathetic.

Point is...a lot of people dont care...whether they actually notice the difference or not. Digital Cable and DVD looks just fine to them. Suits their needs and purposes and budget.

Hell, I love the HD looks. But my home theater right now has a 32" XBR screen...with only S-VHS as my input option...My DVDs look great on it.
Digital cable looks good on it. Is it HD, no but its works quite well.

And if I want to see true HD...well, then I just movies and watch film. ;)

[bodaphoto]

True there is difference that can be seen when it set-up right. As a Wal-Mart associate I can tell most of the people who walk in the store have not a clue about HD, will buy it, not set it up right, and think It looks great when it looks like crap.

You should see the pictures people bring in to get printed and brag about how great their pictures, when feet are cut off, heads are half chopped, or little johnny is a half of a mile away in the picture. The same thing applies to electronics stuff. They buy these computers at Wal-Mart thinking they are top - of- the - line, and want to buy a video camera and make home videos. I laugh to myself and say yeah it'll work. Then they call us wanting tech-support.. Call 1800wal-mart.

[alpi69]

people love good films like forrest gump but they still watch weird reality shows for hours.
so even if they love HD deep inside they will watch crap broadcast quality if you feed them with it and it doesn´t cost them anything.

it all comes down to cost: HD is emerging slow because the TV´s are too expensive. if soemone spends thousands for a HDTV set then they will pay for an HDTV screening of IceAge etc. to see the brilliance. but after a while when you ask them: we screen a film in HDTV and in SD, would you pay for the HDTV, then i guess many will say they are happy with the SD, because they are more intrigued by the story than the imagequality.

for us as creators it raises the question if it worth it. and the answer must always be: yes, we need to push the limits. we need to create the image in the best possible and affordable way. if the consumer will "appreciate" the extra effort is in doubt, but if helps to create the illusion then it was worth it.

[John_Q]

for us as creators it raises the question if it worth it. and the answer must always be: yes, we need to push the limits. we need to create the image in the best possible and affordable way. if the consumer will "appreciate" the extra effort is in doubt, but if helps to create the illusion then it was worth it.


Well put. I want to make the best possible image for ME and others like me. From there it will be seen by the public however they choose to watch it. But at least I know there will always be the best possible version available for me to watch...or even the public, when the time comes that technology is readily and affordably available to them.

[Neil Rowe]

..i just look at the inherent value for a film out, and see the immediately apparent advantage of HD res.--specifically progressive 24p HD ..of course not everyone does stuff intended for the big screen, but if you do its an obvious plus.

[author]

...
I think that the sollution is to start with the children. High school curiculum should get rid of Triganomitry and Algerbra 2 (which has no baring in the real world for most people) and instead teach home theater setup. ...


I agree, we start with the children. We teach them spelling and grammar and the writing of simple, declarative sentences. And we INCREASE their exposure to math, science, and other technical subjects so that the new technologies continue to be developed by each new generation. Above all, we teach them how to THINK. Then it will not be necessary to teach how to hook up a home theater which will be obsolete by June; they will have the analytical abilities hook up whatever new entertainment technologies materialize over the next several decades (and there will be a BUNCH).

This is not directed to you personally, Bannana (albeit you did misspell the name of a certain yellow fruit so beloved by one Chiquita-lady)--it's just that you've hit a pet peeve of mine. Whether one writes books, makes movies, or just posts on the Internet, good communicative skills are all important. Otherwise, you don't get your point across.

You learn that in school.

Trig and Geometry helps. Really. It's called logic. And THAT you will use (or should use) daily.

All the best in all your endeavors,

--Ralph
:D

[author]

...
I am basicly asking if you think peoples poor vision accounts for some ignorace toward High Def or is it all a money thing? I mean, lots of people wear contancts these days.


To answer your question, I do not believe it's poor vision preventing appreciation of high definition TV. My vision is lousy, which is why I wear Coke bottle bottoms for glasses, yet the first time I saw HDTV, I was blown away. But I understand the technical difference between it and SD. Most consumers do not and, hence, do not see the improvement until they are educated to it. The ad campaigns for DVD movies a few years ago serves of an example of the effort necessary. HDTV will succeed in the same manner. Most of us on this board, you and me included, are early technology adaptors. We glom onto the good stuff because we KNOW its better. Everyone else will catch up soon.

You'll see.

You got good vision. ;)

--Ralph

[Guest]

Yes it is true. I cannot spell to save my life. :-/

I was always bad at it and Im not sure why. In my lifetime I only had 2 teachers that confronted me about my spelling. Both of them asked me if I was just doing it to be funny. Which made me laugh, because it just happens without me trying. Some have said I could be dislezic. I dont know. All I know is that I have no idea how to spell "dislexick". ???

I have a theory that I have never really learned to read either. I think I have just learned to remember what words look like as images and so I know the word by rembering what it looks like instead of reading it. So maybe thats why my spelling is so bad. I cant spell cause I just type the words as drawings. Therein; I am saying I am spelling with the worng side of my brain. I am using the drawing creative side of my brain to spell. I also like to draw my whole life so this makes sence. :)

Also, my math teacher would take away my drawings in Algerbra 2 class. I told him that this was the only way I could stand to listen to him. If I just watched I would fall asleep. For me, my whole life, Math was the only subject in school which was a problem. Spelling was other peoples Problem with me. The last guy said that math teaches logic. Maybe you are right.
But I cannot learn anything if I dont see a direct corolation to how it applys to being useful in my life. It was always like, do this problem for 10 minutes that a caculator can do for you in a second. It is useful for some people (nasa technicans, rocket scientists, architects maybe, ect) but not for me or most humans.

At this point I think the question is this: If anyone is still reading this post after about 7 paragraphs of me blabing then I am supprised. This is also the longest I have ever thought about how bad my spelling is. This also has nothing to do with High Definition. I am also wondering, that if I just keep on typing what will happen. Will they disalow my post if I start writing the Great Gadspy? I think some people I know who are good at math think they are so much smarter than people who are bad at it. But I say there are different ways to measure intellegence and there are many facets of intellegence. So to end this> IN your oppinon does being a bad speller equal to you a lesser intellegence?

(you being anyone reading this)

[Guest]

If you just read the above post about me telling the story of my life at being a bad speller then I am about to tie it all together for you with our discussion of High definition and people who can tell the diffrence.

To sum it up... An analogy... A person writing a good story with bad spelling/grammer is like a person watching a good show on TV in Standard Definiton as to A person writing a bad story with correct spelling and grammer is like a person watching a bad show on TV in High Definiton. In the end the only thing that really matters is if the show/story was any good. So more people are going to let the bad spelling pass. THE END.

[XCheck]

Relax. Problem with your spelling is not in you - it's the damn language. If only English was phonetic like more advanced languages, things would be so much easier....

You just are one of those people who are highly visual. Damn the school system - even if you were math genius, they couldn't teach you properly (you would most likely teach yourself, just like you do HD and stuff...)

BTW, first year in high school, I was failing physics. Second year, we get a new teacher and physics became one of my most favorite subjects. I eventually graduated with masters in physics and technology. Maybe you were not so lucky with your English and Math teachers.

[Shaw]

Problem is that there isn't a single (living) language that is phonetic.

Actually most humans recognize the words shape rather than the actual letters when reading. I don't know of anyone who sits down and starts to sound out words (who is sufficiently capable of reading).

Whether we like it or not though a standard does exist (don't get me going on the linguistic problems with the current "Standard"!) that is a social requirement as well as a must for effective communication.

I think you miss the point about the math.... sure you're not going to be likely to sit down and write out and solve these equations you learn unless you go into some form of science. But as already mentioned it teaches you to think in entirely new ways. That is the benefit of education, not how many facts a person can recite.

[Bill__Turner]

Just have to comment, because of what we do, we are image quality concious, most people are not. I will only go to good theaters (like the Arc Light in Hollywood) with great sound and projection, but I am a very small minority.

All you have to do is channel surf during prime time (those shows are entirely rating driven) to see that quality has different meanings to different people.

Get the best equipment you can afford, record the best images you can and you will have done all you can do- satisfy yourself with the quality.

Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics

[XCheck]

Problem is that there isn't a single (living) language that is phonetic.

That's plainly not correct. In my native language (as well as others, for example Russian or Arabic), you can write a complete nonsense and people will be able to read it because it's how the letters are put together, not how the words look like, what determines the sound. That's what phonetic means, I think. In fact, I remember most English spelling by mentally reading it in Czech phonetics - when I am not sure I 'read and listen' to it before making a decision whether some spelling is right. The added benefit is that everything is read consistently all the time - no ambiguity about 'j', 'ch', 'g', 'c', etc., unlike in English. Every letter sounds the same all the time.

Otherwise I agree with the gist of your post.

But I think this thread is not about phonetics and/or dyslexia. It's about seeing a difference in things, and ignorance. I think that ignorance, or it's worst form, willful ignorance, is human race's worst enemy. It's different if you don't know something because you haven't had the chance to learn it or you just can't get it (spelling ;) ). I think vast majority of consumers is wilfully ignorant (not just in TV/Video arena) - they don't WANT to know. It's the 'I don't want to know how it works, just show me which button to push' mentality. The same people vote. :'(

[Shaw]

You bring up some interesting points about language:

First anyone who is a native speaker of a language, who is familiar with their given writing system will have a pretty good idea about pronunciation from text. More problems pop up when we go from speech to writing. Every native speaker of a language has an innate knowledge of the sounds that are "legal" in their language.

For instance, as English speakers we know that _zort_ and _weet_ could be real English words (actually weet is a real middle english word). At the same time we also know that _mpactin_ and _nyet_ cannot be legitimate English words as they do not conform to the possible order of sounds that English allows.

Because of this I could write pretty much anything that could be a possible English word, which no one had heard before, and many would likely get the pronunciation correct. This goes for all languages.

What most people don't realize though is that the sound represented by a single character (whether we have an alphabet or syllabary etc) is pronounced slightly different relative to the sounds that are around it. We, as speakers of the language, are nearly always unaware of this though. What we have, in essence, is a region of pronunciations which we mentally catagorize as a single sound because our languages do not distinguish certain phonetic traits. This is why Japanese people often have a hard time hearing the difference between English _r_ and _l_. They don't make the same phonetic difference in their language and because of that they mentally associate these two different sounds as one. You often have to physically show the position of the tongue to them before they begin to understand the difference.

The following is a chart of the IPA - International Phonetic Alphabet - which is used in language analysis.

http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/fullchart.html

For example:

English _r_ has slightly different pronunciation (nothing we would really notice) depending on what phonetic environment it appears in:

When it comes before a voiceless sound (sound produced without vibration of the vocal chords) it appears as a "voiceless r" When folllowed by a voiced consonant (vocal chords vibrating) or vowel (which are always voiced) it picks up this voicing giving us a "voiced r".

So.... now that I have effectively hijacked this thread, my point is that there is no language which represents its sounds phonetically :) We can also see this due to the existance of dialects. If the language was phonetic you would spell all the dialects differently but we don't.

[XCheck]

What can I say? On this forum, one learns something every day.

Obviously you know a heck of a lot more than I do about languages and such, so I am not going to dispute your points. It's all very interesting.

I don't know how it relates to spelling, but that's besides the point. I am glad I am going to sleep a little bit less ignorant tonight ;D

How do you write 'strè prst skrz krk' in International Phonetic Alphabet?

[Shaw]

Yes I have found that out myself very often! I'm always picking up new things! I just want to point out that I wasn't trying to make anyone feel badly by my post. I love sharing information about language is all! I just find it fascinatiing.

How it relates to spelling: well, spelling doesn't represent the true sound, as distinguished by phonetic traits, produced at any given time. It represents (roughly) the collections of sounds we percieve as being "one." The only thing that makes this difficult is that other languages do not always percieve the same sounds as "one"!

Honesty, I don't know how to write 'strè prst skrz krk' in the IPA because I do not know precisely how these sounds are rendered in speech. Depending on where you live, this same word could very well be pronounced several different ways (this happens in English all the time) so the IPA transcription would be different for each pronunciation. If you had a sound clip I could write it out for you though :)

Am I right in guessing that you speak Polish? I know a guy from Poland and when he writes in his native tongue it comes out looking very similar to what you just posted.

EDIT: Maybe we can get a mod to split these posts off into a topic for the off topic forum? That way we could continue to discuss without further hijacking of the thread ;)

[XCheck]

Sure. We can take it somewhere else (although I am not sure I have much to add).

I am Czech (we are Poles' older brothers, although they will say otherwise, but don't believe them! ;)). That sentence doesn't show properly in this charset, anyway. It's one example of Czech 'all consonant' sentences, and it is a tongue twister. It means 'put a finger through your throat', and yes, it sounds that way too. ;D

[Ranger]

In the end the only thing that really matters is if the show/story was any good. So more people are going to let the bad spelling pass. THE END.
Keep telling yourself that. A great story means nothing if no one takes you seriously.

Like it or not, good spelling and grammar adds an element of credibility to your story. It also gets you through the front door a lot easier when proposing your story to potential producers and/or financial backers.

No one is expecting that you to be the next Tom Clancy, Steven King or John Grisham, but a little more attention to detail in the mechanics of what you write will go along way in transforming your story into reality.

[Anhar_Miah]

where did langauge come from?

[Shaw]

Came about from random comments about education etc :D

Hey, it's a fascinating subject though (IMO!) - I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often ;)

[David Jimerson]

Keep telling yourself that. *A great story means nothing if no one takes you seriously. *

Like it or not, good spelling and grammar adds an element of credibility to your story. *It also gets you through the front door a lot easier when proposing your story to potential producers and/or financial backers.

No one is expecting that you to be the next Tom Clancy, Steven King or John Grisham, but a little more attention to detail in the mechanics of what you write will go along way in transforming your story into reality.

Absolutely correct. I will not go past the first paragraph if the grammar or spelling is bad. Why waste my time? Why should I care about it if the author doesn't?

This is especially true if I'm reading something from someone who, oh, I don't know, wants me to HIRE him/her. The resume' gets pitched at the first misspelling.

[Guest]

IN Reply to Ranger and David Jimerson,

---Ok, yes if I was writing a Resume I would make sure the spelling was correct. But say I had you read a 120pg script and it was brillant. Certianly you would not be so anal as to stop reading mid way because some of the spelling was mistyped or some of the gramer was improper.. would you?

My argument is simply that some people are too anal about spelling just as some people wash there hands too much. I say, Who Cares. However, I agree with you that there are times when spelling matters, but most times, who cares. -Stop washing your hands so much, its giving you dry skin.

[David Jimerson]

You weren't talking about a script; you were talking about a "story." *The only way it makes sense in the analogy you were using if it was prose, not a script.

I'm pretty sure everyone else understood it that way, too.

And yes, I'd be annoyed enough to toss the script if there were enough spelling and grammar errors. *It *matters.* *Why give someone who reads a hundred scripts a week another excuse to toss yours?

I would submit, actually, that without the basic language skills mastered, you *can't* write a brilliant script. A script -- a story -- is all about communication, and if you communicate poorly, how can it ever be "brilliant"?

[Kenn_Christenson]

Misspellings and improper grammar distract from the story, just as an actor breaking character or a continuity error can distract you in a film.

Spelling and grammar are important for a writer to master, just as focus and exposure are important for the cinematographer. ;)

[Policar]

He has a point about aspect ratios. Kubrick and Friedkin (who's a hack in comparison) preferred 1:1.33 to widescreen. Kubrick released a lot of his films "unmatted." They were stretched wide for theaters, and the area above and below was restored for home viewers, per his request.

Citizen Kane is one of the most stunning works of cinematography ever and it was shot in 4:3. 16:9, 1:1.85 and 1:2.35 aren't inherently more artful, although I like widescreen quite a bit, particularly for action films.

[chalbers]

I think that the sollution is to start with the children. High school curiculum should get rid of Triganomitry and Algerbra 2 (which has no baring in the real world for most people) and instead teach home theater setup.


Dang !! Trig and Algebra a BIG part of my job ! Not setting up home theaters.

[Aejaz]

wow, look at the potential of the HD technology.

Amazing...what kind of discussion it can generate.

Enjoyed it, though.

[Ranger]

I think that the sollution is to start with the children. High school curiculum should get rid of Triganomitry and Algerbra 2 (which has no baring in the real world for most people) and instead teach home theater setup. How to program a VCR. and other problems that people actually encounter in the real world. Sony should sponcer the school programs cause maybe then people would want an HDTV.

Welcum to the Skool of Advanced Home Theatar Edukachun
http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/data//500/30743HT.jpg
Reeding, Righting, and Rear Projeckshun TVs
------------------------------------------------
Don't take are wurd for it. *Hear are some testamoniels from some of are former alumni:

James from NJ: "Home theater is my life."
http://www.danwashburn.com/trash2.jpg

Tom from GA: "Home theater skool made me the success I am today."
http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/data/500/13www.homeless.jpg

Timmy from CA: "Speling is overatted."
http://www.barthphoto.com/dishwasher.jpg


Lou from NY: "I was the Distinguished Honor Graduate from the Class of 1993"
http://www.wanderingjacob.com/japan/pictures/model/me/janitor.jpg

[Gary_McClurg]

I thought your post was funny before the grabs showed up. They took a while to load I guess. Which made it even more funnier.

[David Jimerson]

Classic stuff, Ranger! ;D

[dakotapod]

Nice Ranger!

This site is a blast. ;D

We are honored with super talented/knowledgeable people and as a bonus we get many folks with a fantastic sense of humor!

[author]

Welcum to the Skool of Advanced Home Theatar Edukachun ...

Wicked! ;D ... but, alas, so true.

--Ralph